Communication, coordination, and integration

A. Determines if info on the developing Community School (including leadership and team functions and membership) has been written-up and circulated. If not, the change agent determines why and helps address systemic breakdowns; if necessary, effective processes are modeled.

B. Determines if leaders and team members are effectively handling priority tasks. If not, the change agent determines why and helps address systemic breakdowns; if necessary, effective processes are modeled.

C. Determines if change, program, and work teams are being effective (and if not, takes appropriate steps).

For example, determines if resources have been: • mapped

• analyzed to determine

>how well resources are meeting desired functions

>how well programs and services are coordinated/integrated (with special emphasis on maximizing cost-effectiveness and minimizing redundancy)

>what activities need to be improved (or eliminated)

>what is missing, its level of priority, and how and when to develop it (cont.)

D. Determines the adequacy of efforts made to enhance communication to and among stakeholders and, if more is needed, facilitates improvements (e.g., ensures that resource mapping, analyses, and recommendations are written-up and circulated) E. Determines if systems are in place to identify problems related to functioning of the infrastructure and communication systems. If there are problems, determines why and helps address any systemic breakdowns

F. Checks on visibility of reforms and if the efforts are not visible, determines why and helps rectify

4. Formative evaluation and rapid problem solving

A. Works with leaders and team members to develop procedures for formative evaluation and processes that ensure rapid problem solving

B. Checks regularly to be certain there is rapid problem solving. If not, helps address systemic breakdowns; if necessary, models processes.

5. Ongoing support

A. Offers ongoing coaching on an "on-call" basis

For example, informs team members about ideas developed by others or provides expertise related to a specific topic they plan to discuss.

B. At appropriate points in time, asks for part of a meeting to see how things are going and (if necessary) to explore ways to improve the process

C. At appropriate times, asks whether participants have dealt with longer-range planning, and if they haven't, determines what help they need

Social Marketing

Data are used strategically as a stimulus to action, to benchmark progress, for goal setting, for evaluation and assessment, and to establish credibility.

Dennis McGrath

Social marketing is an important tool for fostering a critical mass of stakeholder support in establishing and maintaining a Community School and pursuing other program and systemic transformations. Social marketing draws on concepts developed for commercial marketing. But in the context of school and community change, the focus is not on selling products. The point is to build a consensus for ideas and new approaches that can strengthen youngsters, families, and neighborhoods. And, this is done with the aim of mobilizing action by key stakeholders.

• To achieve this aim, essential information must be

communicated to key stakeholders and strategies must be used to help them understand that the benefits of change will outweigh the costs and are more worthwhile than competing directions for change (Particularly important to effective marketing of change is the inclusion of the evidence base for moving in new directions. Thus, all data indicating the benefits of a comprehensive Community School need to be packaged and widely shared.)

• The strategies used must be personalized and accessible to the subgroups of stakeholders (e.g., must be “enticing,” emphasize that costs are reasonable, and engage them in processes that build consensus and commitment)

From a teaching and learning perspective, the initial phases of social marketing are concerned with creating readiness for change. Substantive change is most likely when high levels of positive energy among stakeholders can be mobilized and appropriately directed over extended periods of time. That is, one of the first concerns related to systemic change is how to mobilize and direct the energy of a critical mass of participants to ensure readiness and commitment. As we have stressed throughout this report, this calls for proceeding in ways that establish and maintain an effective match with the motivation and capabilities of involved parties. Because stakeholders and systems are continuously changing, social marketing is an ongoing process.

One caution: Beware thinking about social marketing as just an event. It is tempting to plan a “big day” to inform, share, involve, and celebrate. Such a day needs to be planned as one facet of a carefully thought ought strategic plan. It can be counterproductive if it is a one-shot activity that drains resources and energy and leads to a belief that “We did our social marketing.”

A tool to benefit people and society –

Using Data

Gap Analysis

Formative Evaluation

All Community Schools need data to enhance the quality of their efforts and to monitor their outcomes in ways that promote appropriate accountability. While new collaborations often do not have the resources for extensive data gathering, sound planning and implementation requires that some information be amassed and analyzed. And, in the process, data can be collected that will provide a base for a subsequent evaluation of impact. All decisions about which data are needed should reflect clarity about how the data will be used.

Whatever a Community School’s stated vision, the initial data to guide planning are those required for making a “gap” analysis (Center for Mental Health in Schools, 1997). Of concern here is the gap between what is envisioned for the future and what exists currently. Doing a gap analysis requires understanding:

• The nature of what has to be done to develop a comprehensive Community School (e.g., a needs assessment and analysis, antecedent conditions including demographics)

• Available resources/assets (e.g., asset mapping and analysis; school and community profiles, finances, policies, programs, facilities, social capital) • Challenges and barriers to achieving the vision

The data for doing a gap analysis may already have been gathered and accessible from existing documents and records (e.g., previous needs assessments, resource catalogues, budget information, census data, school and other organization’s reports, grant proposals). Where additional data are needed, they may be gathered using procedures such as checklists, surveys, semi- structured interviews, focus group discussions, and observations. The survey tools in Appendix E are designed to help with efforts to conduct a gap analysis, establish priorities and objectives, and develop strategic and action plans.

For purposes of formative evaluation, it is important to establish a set of benchmarks and related monitoring procedures. Ideally, the process starts with clarity about the Community School vision and the processes designed for getting from here to there. This is followed by a cycle involving (1) evaluation of ongoing

When the cook tastes the soup it is formative evaluation and

when the guests taste the soup it is summative.

Robert Stake

Impact Evaluation

transactions, judged in the context of antecedent conditions (e.g., inputs or structural conditions),(2) implementation of corrective measures when appropriate, and (3) reevaluation – then back to corrective measures if necessary.

To elaborate on these points: Data on antecedents must be gathered. This includes, for example, baseline data gathered with a view to disaggregating findings on (a) students and enrollment, (b) resource inputs (financial, physical) and (c) human resources and how they are organized and used to accomplish desired ends. Such antecedent conditions determine what and how things are done and what could not be done. Ultimately they shape intervention efficacy.

With respect to analyses of transactions, the emphasis is on how resources are actually used and what transpires. This encompasses the ways in which interventions and infrastructure are organized and implemented; also involved are questions about whether resources are appropriately used. (Is the system functioning as desired by specified interested parties? Which resources are needed at this time? Are the appropriate type and amount of intervention in use?) In monitoring processes, the concern is for both what is and isn't done. More specifically, analyses are made of whether what occurs (and doesn't occur) is consistent with antecedent conditions and intended processes. Of course, in intervention evaluation, the ultimate referents are outcomes. In the short run, the question is: How well are immediate objectives met? An equally important concern is the nature and scope of unintended negative outcomes. In the long run, the questions are: How much did the students, families, school, and neighborhood benefit from the work? Did the benefits outweigh the costs (e.g., financial, psychological)? In considering antecedents, transactions, or outcomes, different judgments often are made by different stakeholder groups. Given the politics of decision making, the dilemma that arises in such instances is: Whose judgments should prevail?

As soon as feasible, data should be gathered on Community School impact and factors that need to be addressed to enhance impact. The focus should be on all arenas of impact – youngsters, families, schools, and neighborhoods (people, programs, and systems). The first emphasis should be on direct indicators related to goals and objectives (See Exhibit 18). The “needs assessment” data gathered initially provide a base level for comparison.

Exhibit 18

Examples of Indicators of Impact

Students

Increased knowledge, skills, & attitudes related to academics

• assessed in keeping with curricula standards

Increased knowledge, skills, & attitudes for enhancing

• Acceptance of responsibility (including attending, following directions and agreed upon rules/laws ) • Self-esteem & integrity

• Social and working relationships

• Self-evaluation and self-direction/regulation • Physical functioning

• Health maintenance • Safe behavior

Reduced barriers to school attendance and functioning by addressing problems related to • Health

• Lack of adequate clothing • Dysfunctional families

• Lack of home support for student improvement • Physical/sexual abuse

• Substance abuse • Gang involvement

• Pregnant/parenting minors • Dropouts

• Need for compensatory learning strategies

Families & Communities

• Increased social and emotional support for families • Increased family access to special assistance

• Increased family ability to reduce child risk factors that can be barriers to learning • Increased bilingual ability and literacy of parents

• Increased family ability to support schooling • Increased positive attitudes about schooling

• Increased home (family/parent) participation at school

• Enhance positive attitudes toward school and community • Increased community participation in school activities

• Increased perception of the school as a hub of community activities

• Increased partnerships designed to enhance education & service availability in community • Enhanced coordination & collaboration between community agencies and school programs

& services

• Enhanced focus on agency outreach to meet family needs • Increased psychological sense of community

Programs & Systems

• Enhanced processes by which staff and families learn about available programs and services and how to access those they need

• Increased coordination among services and programs

• Increases in the degree to which staff work collaboratively and programmatically • Increased services/programs at school site

• Increased amounts of school and community collaboration

• Increases in quality of services and programs because of improved systems for requesting, accessing, and managing assistance for students and families (including overcoming inappropriate barriers to confidentiality)

In planning the evaluation, it is essential to clarify what information is most relevant. This involves specifying intended outcomes and possible unintended outcomes. It also involves plans for assessing how well processes have been implemented and where improvements are needed.

Obviously, a well-designed information management system can be a major aid for storing and providing data on identified needs and current status of individuals and resources. As schools and agencies in the community enhance their systems, the focus on collaboration should be part of the discussions so that overlapping data concerns and safeguards for privacy are well- addressed. In this respect, computerized and appropriately networked information management systems are essential. Such systems, of course, should be designed to ensure data can be disaggregated during analysis to allow for appropriate baseline and subgroup comparisons. Of particular importance in evaluating the impact of Community Schools is the ability to differentiate with respect to (a) comprehensiveness and stage of school development, (b) type, severity, and pervasiveness of problems addressed, (c) stakeholder demographics and initial levels of motivation and development, and (d) resource inputs and contextual constraints.

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. That’s okay as far as it goes.

The second step is to disregard that which can't be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. That’s artificial and misleading.

The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily isn't very important. That’s blindness.

The fourth step is to say

what can't be measured really doesn't exist.

\ That’s suicide. \ /

Expanding the Accountability Framework for a Community School Current accountability pressures reflect values and biases that have led to evaluating a small range of basic skills and doing so in a narrow way

Systems are driven by what is measured for purposes of accountability. This is particularly so when systems are the focus of major reform. Under reform conditions, policy makers often want a quick and easy recipe to use. This leads to accountability measures aimed at holding program administrators and staff accountable for specific, short-term results. Little thought is given to the negative effects such a limited focus can have on achieving more complex desired long-term outcomes. As a result, in too many instances, the tail wags the dog, the dog gets dizzy, and the citizenry doesn’t get what it needs and wants. School accountability is a good example of the problem. Accountability has extraordinary power to reshape schools – for good and for bad. The influence can be seen in classrooms everyday. With the increasing demands for accountability, teachers quickly learn what will and will not be evaluated, and slowly but surely greater emphasis is placed on teaching what will be on the tests. Over time what is on the tests comes increasingly is viewed as the most important outcomes. Because only so much time is available to the teacher, other things not only are deemphasized, they also are dropped from the curriculum. If allowed to do so, accountability procedures have the power to reshape the entire curriculum.

What's wrong with that? Nothing – if what is being evaluated reflects all the important things we want youngsters to learn in school. This, of course, is not the case.

Current accountability pressures reflect values and biases that have led to evaluating a small range of basic skills and doing so in a narrow way. For efforts to develop a comprehensive Community School, this is a fundamental concern.

Policy makers want schools, teachers, and administrators (and students and their families) held accountable for higher academic achievement. Moreover, as everyone involved in school improvement knows, the only measure that really counts is achievement test scores. These tests drive school accountability, and what such tests measure has become the be-all and end-all of what is attended to by many decision makers. This produces a growing disconnect between the realities of what it takes to improve academic performance and where many policy makers and school reformers are leading the public.

The disconnect is especially evident in schools serving what are now being referred to as “low wealth” families. Such families and those who work in schools serving them have a clear appreciation of many barriers to learning that must be addressed

There is a disconnect between what it takes to improve academic performance and what policy makers focus on in holding schools accountable for improving

so students can benefit from the teacher’s efforts to teach. These stakeholders stress that, in many schools, major academic improvements are unlikely until comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to address these barriers are developed and pursued effectively.

At the same time, it is evident to anyone who looks that there is no direct accountability for whether these barriers are addressed. To the contrary, efforts essential for addressing barriers to development and learning often are devalued and cut when achievement test scores do not reflect an immediate impact. Thus, rather than building the type of system that can produce improved academic performance, prevailing accountability measures are pressuring schools to pursue a direct route to improving instruction. The implicit underlying assumption is that students are motivationally ready and able each day to benefit from the teacher’s instruction. The reality, of course, is that in too many schools the majority of youngsters don’t fit this picture. Students confronted with a host of external interfering factors usually are not in a position to benefit even from significant instructional improvements. The result is low test scores, an achievement gap, and high dropout rates.

Logically, well designed, systematic efforts should be directed at addressing interfering factors. However, current accountability pressures override the logic and result in the marginalization of almost every initiative that is not seen as directly (and quickly) leading to academic gains. Ironically, not only does the restricted emphasis on achievement measures work against the logic of what needs to be done, it works against gathering evidence on how essential and effective it is to address barriers to learning in a direct manner.

As discussed already, efforts to develop a comprehensive Community School expand the focus from the prevailing two component model to a three component model. In keeping with this, Community Schools must adopt an expanded framework for school accountability – a framework that includes direct measures of achievement and much more. We think this is a move toward what Michael Fullan (2005) has called intelligent accountability. Exhibit 19 highlights such an expanded framework.

As illustrated, there is no intent to deflect from the laser-like focus on accountability for meeting high standards related to academics. The debate will continue as to how best to measure academic outcomes, but clearly schools must demonstrate they effectively teach academics.

Exhibit 19

Expanding the Framework for School Accountability

Indicators of Positive Learning and Development

High Standards for Academics* (measures of cognitive

achievements, e.g., standardized tests of achievement, portfolio and other forms of authentic assessment)

High Standards for Learning/ Development Related to Social & Personal Functioning*

(measures of social learning and behavior, character/ values, civility, healthy and safe behavior)

"Community Report Cards" >increases in positive indicators

High Standards for Enabling Learning >decreases

Benchmark and Development** in negative

Indicators of (measures of effectiveness in addressing indicators Progress in barriers , e.g.,

Addressing >increased attendance Barriers & >reduced tardies